Sen. Ted Cruz Makes It Official

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Cruz's Expatriate Terrorist Act is exactly the type of thing Sen. Rand Paul spoke against on the floor of the Senate during his filibuster when he stated:



Cruz's ETA, which thankfully died in the Senate, wanted to strip anyone suspected of going to fight along side of iSIS. It required less proof than the standard "beyond reasonable doubt." Besides this, aiding and abetting the enemy is already covered in our laws. It's called Treason.

Cruz to Introduce Bill to Stop Americans Who Join ISIS From Returning to United States
No clearer renunciation of citizenship than choosing to join ISIS

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, announced today his intent to file the Expatriate Terrorist Act (E.T.A.) of 2014 as soon as the Senate is called back into session on Monday, September 8th.

“Americans who choose to go to Syria or Iraq to fight with vicious ISIS terrorists are party to a terrorist organization committing horrific acts of violence, including beheading innocent American journalists who they have captured,” said Sen. Cruz. “There can be no clearer renunciation of their citizenship in the United States, and we need to do everything we can to preempt any attempt on their part to re-enter our country and carry out further attacks on American civilians.”

The ETA amends an existing statute that provides certain actions by which a United States citizen renounces their citizenship to include becoming a member of, fighting for, or providing material assistance to a designated foreign terrorist organization that is working to attack the United States or its citizens. Provided the requirements of due process are observed, if a U.S. Citizen undertakes these acts with the intent of supplanting his U.S. Citizenship with loyalty to a terrorist organization, that person can be deemed to have forfeited their right to be a United States Citizen and return to the United States.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1678

[Pressing-On]

Beginning at the 01:01:09 mark, Senator Ted Cruz speaks on Senate floor:

MR. CRUZ

AN ISSUE OF GRAVE IMPORTANCE TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY

FROM THE RADICAL SUNNI TERRORIST ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA OR SIMPLY AS THE ISLAMIC STATE, AND NOW IT CLAIMS TO CONTROL TERRITORY IN A GROTESQUE PARODY OF A NATION STATE. ISIS IS A STUDY IN OPPRESSION AND BRUTALITY THAT IS CONDUCTING ETHNIC CLEANSING AGAINST RELIGIOUS MINORITIES IN THE REGION, THAT IS TARGETING AND PERSECUTING CHRISTIANS, AND THAT IS ATTEMPTING TO SUBJECT THE LOCAL POPULATION TO THE STRICTEST FORMS OF SHARIA LAW, AND ISIS HAS GRUESOMELY MURDERED U.S. CIVILIANS AND INDEED, JOURNALISTS ON THE PUBLIC STAGE. IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INABILITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO ANTICIPATE THIS GATHERING THREAT, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE BRUTAL ACTS OF OPPRESSION AGAINST THE WEAK AND THE HELPLESS. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ISIS'S SEIZURE OF FINANCIAL AND MILITARY ASSETS THAT HAVE FUELED THEIR MURDEROUS RAMPAGE. AND ABOVE ALL, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE THREAT THAT ISIS POSES NOT ONLY TO OUR CLOSE ALLIES IN THE REGION BUT ALSO TO OUR CITIZENS AND EVEN HERE IN OUR HOMELAND. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK IN RECENT DAYS ABOUT DEVELOPING A STRATEGY TO COMBAT ISIS. I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A COUPLE OF COMMONSENSE STEPS THAT WE SHOULD TAKE IMMEDIATELY TO COMBAT THIS SCOURGE. FIRST, THE TIME HAS COME -- IT IS BEYOND TIME FOR US TO SECURE OUR BORDERS. REPRESENTING THE STATE OF TEXAS, WHICH HAS A BORDER NEARLY 2,000 MILES LONG, I KNOW FIRSTHAND JUST HOW UNSECURE THE BORDER IS RIGHT NOW. THIS WEEK OF ALL WEEKS WITH THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS UPON US, WE CAN HAVE NO ILLUSIONS THAT TERRORISTS WON'T TRY TO MAKE GOOD ON THEIR SPECIFIC THREATS TO ATTACK AMERICA, AND AS LONG AS OUR BORDER ISN'T SECURE, WE'RE MAKING IT FAR TOO EASY FOR THE TERRORISTS TO CARRY THROUGH ON THOSE PROMISES. RUMORED ISIS ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTHERN BORDER SHOULD UNITE US ALL IN THE RESOLVE TO MAKE BORDER SECURITY A TOP PRIORITY, RATHER THAN AN AFTERTHOUGHT OR RATHER THAN SOMETHING TO BE HELD HOSTAGE FOR POLITICAL NEGOTIATIONS HERE IN THE CONGRESS. SECOND, WE SHOULD TAKE COMMONSENSE STEPS TO MAKE FIGHTING FOR OR SUPPORTING ISIS AN AFFIRMATIVE RENUNCIATION OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP. WE KNOW TODAY THAT THERE ARE OVER A HUNDRED AMERICANS WHO HAVE JOINED ISIS, WHO HAVE TAKEN UP ARMS ALONGSIDE THE JIHADISTS, ALONG WITH THOUSANDS OF OTHERS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION. AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO RETURN TO THEIR COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN TO CARRY OUT TERRORIST ATTACKS THERE. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE ON MAY 24, AN ISIS MEMBER RETURNED TO BELGIUM WHERE HE ATTACKED INNOCENT VISITORS AT A JEWISH MUSEUM, SLAUGHTERING FOUR PEOPLE. AND IT WAS REPORTED TODAY THAT HE HAD BEEN PLOTTING AN EVEN LARGER ATTACK ON PARIS ON BASTILLE DAY. IN ADDITION ON AUGUST 11 OF THIS YEAR, AN ACCUSED ISIS SYMPATHIZED THIGHSER, DONALD RAY MORGAN, WAS ARRESTED AT J.F.K. AIRPORT TRYING TO REENTER THE UNITED STATES. SO WE KNOW THAT THIS THREAT IS REAL. MR. PRESIDENT, THAT IS WHY I HAVE TODAY FILED LEGISLATION, THICS PATRIOT RAT TERRORIST ACT OF 2014 WHICH WOULD AMEND THE EXISTING STATUTE GOVERNING RENUNCIATION OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP TO DESIGNATE FIGHTING FOR A HOSTILE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OR FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AS AN AFFIRMATIVE RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP. BY FIGHTING FOR ISIS, U.S. CITIZENS HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR DESIRE TO BECOME CITIZENS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE. AND THAT CANNOT AND WILL NOT PEACEFULLY COEXIST WITH REMAINING AMERICAN CITIZENS. THE DESIRE TO BECOME A CITIZEN OF A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION THAT HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO WAGE WAR ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, HAS DEMONSTRATED A BRUTAL CAPACITY TO DO SO, MURDERING AMERICAN CIVILIANS ON THE GLOBAL STAGE AND PROMISING TO BRING THAT JIHAD HOME TO AMERICA, WE SHOULD NOT BE FACILITATING THEIR EFFORTS BY ALLOWING FIGHTERS FIGHTING ALONGSIDE ISIS TO COME BACK TO AMERICA WITH AMERICAN PASSPORTS AND WALK FREELY IN OUR CITIES TO CARRY OUT UNSPEAKABLE ACTS OF TERROR. IT IS MY HOPE THAT THE LEGISLATION I'M INTRODUCING TODAY WILL EARN SUPPORT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, THAT WE WILL SEE THIS BODY COME TOGETHER AND SAY WHILE THERE ARE MANY PARTISAN ISSUES THAT DIVIDE US, WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING UNITED STATES CITIZENS FROM ACTS OF TERROR, WE ARE ALL AS ONE. THAT IS MY FERVENT HOPE. THE THIRD THING WE SHOULD DO IS WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE ISIS UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS FOR THREATENING TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES, FOR MURDERING AMERICAN CITIZENS, WHILE DAMAGING ISIS'S FINANCIAL ASSETS IS CERTAINLY A PART OF THIS ACTION, BECAUSE OF THE VERY NATURE OF ISIS, THE RESPONSE MUST BE PRINCIPALLY MILITARY. ALL AMERICANS ARE WEARY OF THE LONG AND COSTE WARS OF THE LAST DECADE. WE'RE TIRED OF SENDING OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS POTENTIALLY TO DIE IN DISTANT LANDS. NO ONE WANTS TO SEE AN EXTENDED ENGAGEMENT IN IRAQ. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ONE BIT RELUCTANT TO DEFEND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, TO DEFEND THE LIVES OF FELLOW AMERICANS. AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SEE THE GRIM THREAT REPRESENTED BY ISIS. AND THE NEED FOR DECISIVE ACTION. WE SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON A COORDINATED AND OVERWHELMING AIR CAMPAIGN THAT HAS THE CLEAR MILITARY OBJECTIVE OF DESTROYING THE CAPABILITY OF ISIS TO CARRY OUT TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES. WE MUST REMAIN FOCUSED ON THIS CLEAR MILITARY OBJECTIVE IF WE HOPE TO BE SUCCESSFUL. WE CANNOT ENGAGE IN PHOTO OP FOREIGN POLICY OR PRESS RELEASE FOREIGN POLICY OF DROPPING A BOMB HERE, SHOOTING A MISSILE THERE, AND NOT HAVING A STRATEGY THAT IS DICTATED BY CLEAR AND DIRECT MILITARY OBJECTIVES IN FURTHERANCE OF U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. WE SHOULD BE PERFECTLY CLEAR AS WELL THAT ANY ACTION WE TAKE AGAINST ICE SIS IN NO WAY CONTINGENT ON RESOLVING THE CIVIL WAR IN SYRIA. THAT CONFLICT OF CONFLICT IS A TRAGEDY, AND THE SAD REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE NO GOOD OPTIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES IN THIS FIGHT. WE MAY HAVE HAD LESS RADICAL OPTIONS THREE YEARS AGO, BUT THOSE ARE NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TODAY. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAD PROPOSED ARMING REBEL FORCES THAT CONTAINED TERRORIST FACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ISIS. PREVIOUSLY, WE WERE TOLD THAT THE REBELS FIGHTING ALONGSIDE ISIS WERE OUR FRIENDS AND ASSAD AND IRAN WERE OUR ENEMIES. NOW, IN THE FACE OF ISIS, WE'RE HEARING THAT ASSAD MAY BE OUR FRIEND, IRAN MAY BE OUR FRIEND, AND ISIS IS NOW OUR ENEMY. THIS MAKES NO SENSE. INDEED, IT'S A DANGEROUS CYCLE REMINISCENS OF GEORGE ORWELL'S " 1984." HE WROTE "AT THIS MOMENT IN 1984, OCEANA WAS AT WAR WITH ASIA AND IN ALLIANCE WITH EAST ASIA. ACTUALLY IT WAS ONLY FOUR YEARS SINCE OCEANA HAD BEEN AT WAR WITH EAST ASIA AND A ALLIANCE WITH EAST ASIA. BUT OFFICIALLY CHANGE OF PARTNERS HAD NEVER HAPPENED. THEY WERE AT WAR WITH OCEANA AND THERE ARE HAD ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH ASIA. THE ENEMY OF THE MOMENT, AND ANY PAST OR FUTURE AGREEMENT WITH HIM WAS IMPOSSIBLE. THIS ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO HAVE NO SENSE OF PAST OR FUTURE. ALL OF THOSE FAMILIAR WITH THE TERRIBLE HUMAN CARNAGE INFLICTED BY THE CIVIL YAR IN SYRIA PRAY FOR ITS END. BUT THE GOAL OF OUR ACTION IN ISIS SHOULD NOT BE TO END IT BY SUPPORTING ASSAD. THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS NOT ALWAYS MY FRIEND. AND SOMETIMES THE GOAL IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENEMY WHO POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, NOT THE ENABLER OF YET ANOTHER ENEMY OF AMERICA. IT SHOULD ALSO ARE CLEARED THAT ANY ACTION WE TAKE AGAINST ISIS SHOULD IN NO WAY BE CONTINGENT ON POLITICAL RECONCILIATION BETWEEN SUNNIS AND SHIITES IN BAGHDAD. THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS OFTEN BECOME DISTRACTED BY THE HOPE TO ACHIEVE THIS RECONCILIATION BUT THE SAD TRUTH IS THE SUNNIS AND SHIITES HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A SECTARIAN CIVIL WAR SINCE 6 2 A.D.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320891-...-business&live

(Con't)

[Pressing-On]

IT IS THE HEIGHT OF HUBRIS, THE HEIGHT OF IGNORANCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT CAN COME AND RESOLVE A 1,500-YEAR-OLD RELIGIOUS CIVIL WAR AND HAVE BOTH SIDES THROW DOWN THEIR ARMS AND EMBRACE EACH OTHER AS BROTHER. THAT SHOULD NOT BE OUR OBJECTIVE ALTHOUGH WE, OF COURSE, ALWAYS HOPE FOR RECONCILIATION AND PEACE. WE SHOULD NOT BE SO NAIVE AS TO MAKE DEFENDING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY CONTINGENT ON RESOLVING MILLENNIA OLD SECTARIAN RELIGIOUS CIVIL WARS. DOING SO, SEEKING TO PROMOTE A UTOPIA, SEEKING TO TRANSFORM IRAQ INTO SWITZERLAND IS NOTHING LESS THAN A FOOL AERRAND. LIKEWISE, IT -- FOOL'S ERRAND. ANY ACTION WE TAKE TO STOP ISIS FROM ATTACKING AND MURDERING AMERICANS IS NO NO WAY CONTINGENT ON CONSENSUS FROM THE SO-CALLED INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. AMERICA IS BLESSED TO HAVE MANY GOOD FRIENDS AND ALLIES THIS THE-RANGE AND BEYOND WHO UNDERSTAND THE THREAT OF ISIS AND ARE EAGER TO DO WHAT THEY CAN TO COMBAT IT AND WE WELCOME THEIR SUPPORT. BUT IN ORDER THAT THIS ACTION BE DONE RIGHT, IT MUST BE LED BY THE UNITED STATES UNFETTERED BY OTHER NATION'S RULES OF ENGAGEMENT THAT MIGHT IMPEDE OUR EFFECTIVE ACTION. ACHIEVING SOME PREORDAINED NUMBER OF COUNTRIES IN A COALITION IS NOT A STRATEGY. FOR AS AS OFTEN BEEN REMARKED, IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE EFFORTS, THE MISSION DETERMINES THE COALITION, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. IT IS HEARTENING TO HEAR THE VOICES FROM MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE RAISING THE ALARM OF THE THREAT POSED BY ISIS AND PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SIGNALED HIS ATTENTION OF ADDRESSING THE ISSUE LATER THIS WEEK. IT IS WELL PAST TIME FOR HIM TO DO SO. AS HIS RECENT STATEMENTS FROM HIS ADMISSION ON AUGUST 28 THAT -- QUOTE -- "WE DON'T HAVE A STRATEGY YET" TO HIS SUGGESTION ON SEPTEMBER 3 THAT OUR BEST BET IS TO TRY TO -- QUOTE -- "SHRINK ISIS' FEAR OF INFLUENCE UNTIL THEY ARE A MANAGEABLE PROBLEM." THOSE COMMENTS ARE NOT ENCOURAGING. THE OBJECTIVE HERE IS NOT TO MAKE ISIS MANAGEABLE. THE OBJECTIVE HERE IS TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO DESTROY TERRORISTS WHO HAVE DECLARED JIHAD ON OUR NATION. NEITHER ARE THE TWO THINGS WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL PROPOSE IF HIS -- QUOTE -- "NEW GAME PLAN" -- NAMELY, THAT HE WILL NOT BE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS FOR HILT ACTION AGAINST ISIS AND THAT HIS MODEL IS THE COUNTERTERRORISM POLICIES PURSUED BY HIS ADMINISTRATION THE LAST FIVE YEARS. NEITHER OF THESE ARE ENCOURAGING. I ASK THE PRESIDENT TO RECONSIDER BOTH OF THESE POINTS. WHILE ISIS IS OBVIOUSLY PART OF THE SCOURGE OF RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM THAT HAS BEDEVILED THE WEST FOR DECADES, IT IS EQUALLY OBVIOUSLY REPRESENTING A NEW AND PARTICULARPARTICULARLY VIRULENT STRAIN. THE PRESIDENT IS CONSIDERING AN ACTION THAT COULD LAST AS LONG AS THREE YEARS AND MAY REQUIRE A RANGE OF ACTIONS. IF THIS IS INDEED THE CASE, THEN IT IS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO COME TO CONGRESS AND LAY OUT HIS STRATEGY SO THAT WE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE CLEAR ON IT. I WOULD NOTE, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY VOCAL AND CLEAR DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR, AND I WOULD NOTE AS WELL THAT IT IS BENEFICIAL FOR THE EFFORT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO COME TO CONGRESS BECAUSE, IN DOING SO, IT WILL FORCE THE PRESIDENT TO DO WHAT HAS BEEN LACKING FOR SO LONG, WHICH IS LAY OUT A SPECIFIC AND CLEAR MILITARY OBJECTIVE. WHAT IS IT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH -- THAT IS TETHERED DIRECTLY TO THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF AMERICA. THE CONSTITUTION IS CLEAR: IT IS CONGRESS AND CONGRESS ONLY THAT HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DHAIR WAR. -- TO DECLARE WAR. NOW, ANY PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF, HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO AN IMMINENT CRISIS, TO RE-SPHOND A CLEAR -- TO RESPOND TO A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT. HE IS SUGGESTING ENGAGED MILITARY ACTION, AND IT IS, THEREFORE, INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION FOR HIM TO ATTEMPT TO PURSUE THAT ACTION WITHOUT RECOGNIZING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THIS BODY. IT IS MY HOPE THAT HE WILL DO SO, AND IT IS MY HOPE THAT WE WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE AND MEANINGFUL DEBATE ABOUT THE MILITARY OBJECTIVE WE SHOULD BE UNITED IN ACHIEVING, WHICH IS NAMELY DESTROYING ISIS AND PREVENTING THEM FROM COMMITTING ACTS OF TERROR, MURDERING INNOCENT AMERICANS. GIVEN THE NEED TO CONSIDER SUCH ACTION AGAINST A NEW ACTOR LIKE ISIS, IT ALSO MUST BE ADMITTED THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY HAS NOT BEEN A SUCCESS. THEY HAVE LABELED THE 2009 ATTACK ON FORT HOOD IN HIGH HOME STATE OF TEXAS -- IN MY HOME STATE OF TEXAS AS AN ACT OF "WORKPLACE VIOLENCE." EVEN THOUGH NIDAL HASAN RECENTLY ASKED TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE ISLAMIC STATE, THEY ALSO MISSED CONNECTING THE DOTS THAT WOULD HAVE UNCOVERED THE RADICALIZATION OF THE TSARNOV BROTHERS THAT RESULTED IN THE ATTACK IN THE BOSTON THAT I THAT I REMEMBER ON THIS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ELDER TSARANOV BROTHER WORE SHIPPED AT THE SAME MOSQUE WHERE THE ISIS HEAD OF WORSHIP. THIS JIHAD K'S REACH BACK AND DIRECTLY TAKE THE LIVES OF AMERICAN SENTENCE AT HOME. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO THE ATTACK ON OUR FACILITIES IN BENGHAZI ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2012, IN WHICH FOUR AMERICANS ARE MURDERED, INCLUDING THE FIRST AMBASSADOR KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY SINCE 1979. AN EVENT THAT INNOG RATED LIBYA LIBYA'S SPIRAL INTO TERRORIST ANARCHY THAT CONTINUES UNCHECKED TO THIS DAY. AND THEY COMPLETELY MISSED THE GATHERING THREAT OF ISIS TO THE POINT THAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF WAS UNDER THE MISAPPREHENSION THAT THE GROUP WAS THE TERRORIST EQUIVALENT OF THE JUNIOR VARSITY JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO. WE CANNOT FORWARD TO RETURN TO THESE -- WE CANNOT AFFORD TO RETURN TO THESE POLICIES GIVEN THE ACUTE THREAT POSED BY ISIS. IT IS MY HAPPY HOPE THAT THIS BODY WILL STAND TOGETHER AS ONE IN BIPARTISAN UNITY TO SECURE THE BORDERS AND TO CHANGE OUR LAWS TO PASS THE LEGISLATION I'M INTRODUCING TODAY TO MAKE CLEAR IN THAT ANY AMERICAN THAT TAKES UP ARMS WITH ISIS HAS, IN DOING SO, CONSTRUCTIVELY RENOUNCED HIS OR HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP SO THAT THE CONGRESS CAN WITH ONE VOICE PROTECT AMERICANS HERE AT HOME. THIS REQUIRES CLEAR, DECISIVE, UNIFIED ACTION, AND IT IS MY HOPE THAT ALL OF US WILL COME TOGETHER SUPPORTING SUCH ACTION AND THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL SUBMIT TO THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS SEEKING AUTHORIZATION TO PROTECT AMERICA AGAINST ISIS AND TO ENGAGE IN A CONCENTRATED, DIRECTED MILITARY CAMPAIGN TO TAKE THEM OUT. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320891-...-business&live

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

http://drrichswier.com/2014/11/07/ted-cruz-eligible/

From Harvard Law Review:

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

http://rare.us/story/ted-cruz-wants-...ldnt-get-them/


"For Cruz, this supposed middle ground includes supporting McCain’s fellow hawk Joe Lieberman for defense secretary; introducing a bill to strip Americans accused of terrorism of their citizenship without due process; and wanting to grow the already enormous and wasteful Pentagon budget."

Article written by The Hipster Libertarian? She also lied that Cruz didn't call for "due process". He clearly states that he does, which I referenced in post #31. She, thus, loses ALL credibility.



http://bonniekristian.com/

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

He's a Yale guy... wife is a VP at Goldman-Sachs and CFR member... he was a policy advisor to Shrub...

Neocon.

Not every Yale guy is bad. Not everything about Goldman-Sachs is bad.

As to the CFR - WHAT ABOUT HIT PIECE ON HEIDI CRUZ AND CFR? - BY DONNA GARNER - 3.29.15

In the clip, Cruz explains to interviewer Derrick Broze that the CFR has thousands of people in its membership -- even John Bolton -- and that his wife (and probably John Bolton) joined CFR to try to bring some conservative principles to the table.

Quote from Heidi S. Cruz:

"I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at
building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity
and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are
no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable
role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic
investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no
force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital,
and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses.
This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for
the poorest among us–truly the measure of our success. As such,
investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive
instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed
in conjunction with market participants."

http://www.educationviews.org/hit-pi...ign-relations/

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Article written by The Hipster Libertarian? She also lied that Cruz didn't call for "due process". He clearly states that he does, which I referenced in post #31. She, thus, loses ALL credibility.



http://bonniekristian.com/

Don't knock the Hipster Librarian. She is a great source for Libertarian-related issues. IIRC, she's also a big Rand Paul supporter.

Cruz did say he wanted due process, but the problem with that is the law doesn't give due process. The law only needs the "preponderance of the evidence," which is also known as the "balance of probabilities," and is a much lower standard to meet than either "clear and convincing evidence" or evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt."

So while Cruz may claim to be for due process, the ETA would not have allowed that due process because the current law doesn't allow it.

To be fair to Cruz, he isn't taking away due process. The written law, as it currently stands, already strips due process from any citizen engaging in terrorist activities.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Well if the Cruz, Paul, Bush is all the GOP is going to offer, better get ready for another DEM president.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Don't knock the Hipster Librarian. She is a great source for Libertarian-related issues. IIRC, she's also a big Rand Paul supporter.

Cruz did say he wanted due process, but the problem with that is the law doesn't give due process. The law only needs the "preponderance of the evidence," which is also known as the "balance of probabilities," and is a much lower standard to meet than either "clear and convincing evidence" or evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt."

So while Cruz may claim to be for due process, the ETA would not have allowed that due process because the current law doesn't allow it.

To be fair to Cruz, he isn't taking away due process. The written law, as it currently stands, already strips due process from any citizen engaging in terrorist activities.

She is also a liar.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

She is also a liar.

Okay. I'm not going to argue over this.

The fact is the current law doesn't allow due process, and Cruz's admendment of the current law doesn't address that issue.

You say she's a liar, and some could say Cruz also lied since the law doesn't allow due process.

If he were truly serious about giving due process, he would have added a clause to do so. He didn't.